Search results

Since the late 1980s we’ve been inspired by feminist theorizing to interrogate our field of organization studies, looking critically at the questions it asks, at the underlying premises of the theories allowing for such questions, and by articulating alternative premises as a way of suggesting other theories and thus other questions the field may need to ask. In so doing, our collaborative work has applied insights from feminist theorizing and cultural studies to topics such as leadership, entrepreneurship, globalization, business ethics, issues of work and family, and more recently to sustainability. This text is a retrospective on our attempts at intervening in our field, where we sought to make it more fundamentally responsive to problems in the world we live in and, from this reflective position, considering how and why our field’s conventional theories and practices – despite good intentions – may be unable to do so.

This paper aims to bring to the fore the importance of feminist epistemologies in the history of the organization of management studies since the 1980s by following various intellectual moves in the development of feminist theorizing as they cross over to organization studies, including their analytical possibilities for reclaiming historically the voices of major women scholars, especially in doctoral seminars. The paper narrates these epistemological activities by mobilizing and reconsidering from the past to the present, the notions of “unmuting,” “mutating” and “mutiny.” It ends in a reflection addressing the state of business schools at present and why the field of organization and management studies needs “mutiny” now.

The paper adopts a narrative approach in which the voices of its authors appear to be central as they consider and reconsider over time their understanding of “unmuting,” “mutation” and “mutiny” as notions with analytical potential. This approach is influenced by Foucault’s “history of the present” but with contingencies brought about by feminist interpretations. The application of these notions is demonstrated by reclaiming and clarifying the epistemological underpinning in the works of three major women scholars as included in a doctoral seminar: Mary Parker Follett, Edith Penrose and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. These notions are further redeployed for their potential in institutional applications.

At present, the findings are discursive – if they can be called so, but the main motivation behind this writing is to go beyond discourse in the written sense, and to mobilize other activities, still in the realm of epistemological and scholarly work. These activities would legitimize actual interventions for changing business schools from their current situation as neoliberal entities, which mute understanding of major problems in the world, as well as the voices of most humans and non-humans paying for the foibles of neoliberalism.

The paper demonstrates the necessity of developing approaches for interventions in knowledge producing institutions increasingly limited by neoliberal premises in what can be said and done as legitimate knowledge. In doing this, the paper articulates the importance of keeping history alive to avoid the increasing “forgetfulness” neoliberalization brings about. The paper, in its present form, represents an active act of “remembering”.

Postmodernist contestations of modernist economic and organizational rationalities have made immense contributions to organizational analysis. A current direction in critical theory now, working through the postmodernist critique, seeks new conceptions of organizations and sources for the revitalization of organizational life. In particular, feminist criticism drawing on, and contributing to, postmodern forms of inquiry and interpretation, offers new visions of critical organizational analysis. This article addresses feminist postmodern critiques, and particularly discusses two feminist contributions developed out of serious critical engagement with postmodernist thought: eco‐feminism and conceptions of “relational autonomy”, of agentic, social subjectivity.

The Society of Gender Professionals is a new international association of gender practitioners, academics, and activists dedicated to promoting feminist action and applied research, and raising the profile of gender expertise around the world. The organization’s start-up team relied on feminist and sociological research and theory to develop its organizational policies and practices. Throughout the start-up process, the team documented approaches, challenges, and lessons learned in meeting minutes, video recordings, email conversations, feedback surveys, and personal reflections in order to investigate and learn from efforts to put feminist organizational theory into practice. This paper seeks to review the theories that guided the founding of the Society of Gender Professionals and shares the challenges, reflections, and lessons learned in the process of building an organization that seeks to deconstruct privilege and hierarchies and promote inclusivity across a diverse membership. By publishing these experiences, the organization aims to contribute to the broader literature around cultivating feminist organizations so that others may learn from the complexities and considerations addressed, and further advance their own feminist organizational efforts.

The purpose of this paper is to interrogate the “double-jeopardy” in widely adopted women’s leadership development interventions aimed at “fixing” women, explore critical feminist coaching (CFC) perspectives and practices and offer more equitable and just alternatives for developing women leaders.

This paper includes a literature review of post-feminist and critical feminist perspectives and a critical examination of coaching for women leaders from each perspective.

Postfeminist approaches in organizations are little scrutinized because of the dominant postfeminist discourse that women's subordination and oppression have been “resolved” through neoliberal, individualistic interventions, such as postfeminist coaching programs. Infusing the message of “fixing women” through emphasizing “4 C’s” – confidence, control, courage and competition – postfeminist coaching programs have been submitting women leaders to “double jeopardy.” The authors critique this postfeminist coaching paradox from a critical feminist perspective foregrounding “4 R’s” – reflecting, reforming, raising and rebuilding – promising more equitable, just development.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to describe CFC and presentation of a conceptual and practical model of the process. The authors define postfeminist coaching as the disavowal of feminist values and failure to challenge gender hegemony in the coaching process. The authors propose a model of CFC defined as the explicit embrace of feminist values and challenge of gender hegemony in the coaching process. The authors offer alternatives for developing women leaders amid paradoxical, complex, capitalist systems, with a critical lens challenging postfeminism.

Departing from an online interactive Gender Café on the topic of Knowledge Management (KM), jointly hosted by a UN agency and the Society of Gender Professionals, this chapter seeks to provide gender practitioners and others with practical examples of how to “gender” KM in international development. Through analyzing the travel of feminist ideas into the field of KM with inspiration from Barbara Czarniawska’s and Bernard Joerge’s (1996) theory of the travel of ideas, the chapter explores the spaces, limits, and future possibilities for the inclusion of feminist perspectives. The ideas and practical examples of how to do so provided in this chapter originated during the café, by the participants and panellists. The online Gender Café temporarily created a space for feminist perspectives. The data demonstrate how feminist perspectives were translated into issues of inclusion, the body, listening methodologies, practicing reflection, and the importance to one’s work of scrutinizing underlying values. However, for the feminist perspective to be given continuous space and material sustainability developing into an acknowledged part of KM, further actions are needed. The chapter also reflects on future assemblies of gender practitioners, gender scholars and activists, recognizing the struggles often faced by them. The chapter discusses strategies of how a collective organizing of “outside–inside” gender practitioners might push the internal work of implementing feminist perspectives forward.

This chapter introduces a conceptual schema with which the authors chart the historical trajectory of four realms of feminist antiviolence efforts in the United States, describing strains and tensions between and within each realm, with a particular focus on the efficacy of violence prevention.

We draw on feminist theory and empirical studies of antiviolence efforts as well as our own interview and ethnographic research into violence prevention.

This chapter charts a four-part schema for understanding the trajectory of feminist engagements with violence against women. It theorizes that the segmentation of feminist antiviolence has given rise to a variety of tensions within realms that could be resolved or mitigated by reconnecting the realms.

In the face of growing objections to their handling of sexual assault and other forms of gender-based violence, the military, colleges, and other institutions have touted their violence prevention programs. While these programs serve as a testament to over forty years of feminist efforts to institutionalized antiviolence policies and practices, without a holistic feminist approach, violence prevention functions as little more than public relations.

The chapter is of use for scholars thinking about violence against women and gender-based violence, as well as institutions that set policy around issues of violence.

In 1920 Margaret Sanger called voluntary motherhood “the key to the temple of liberty” and noted that women were “rising in fundamental revolt” to claim their right to determine their own reproductive fate (Rothman, 2000, p. 73). Decades later Barbara Katz Rothman reflected on the social, political and legal changes produced by reproductive-rights feminists since that time. She wrote: So the reproductive-rights feminists of the 1970s won, and abortion is available – just as the reproductive-rights feminists of the 1920s won, and contraception is available. But in another sense, we did not win. We did not win, could not win, because Sanger was right. What we really wanted was the fundamental revolt, the “key to the temple of liberty.” A doctor’s fitting for a diaphragm, or a clinic appointment for an abortion, is not the revolution. It is not even a woman-centered approach to reproduction (2000, p. 79).

To investigate how the perceived feminist/womanist identities of female managers in Turkey affect their leadership styles.

Three main constructs were used to measure the relationship between feminist and womanist identity and leadership styles: womanist identity attitude scale, feminist identity composite scale, and GLOBE leadership scale. Data were collected by web‐based survey from the 102 female managers of large‐scale private sector companies in Turkey. Results were analyzed by regression analysis.

The results of the study, gathered over a two‐month web‐based survey, show that the feminist/womanist approaches held by women influence a variety of leadership styles. While feminist approaches are inspiring and effective in team‐work, womanist approaches affect collaborative, participative, and visionary leadership styles.

Only female managers from large‐scale companies were included in the research; therefore, the results only reflect the opinions of women from large organizations.

Feminist/womanist lines of thought that emerged as extensions of the women's movement have also impacted upon the executive branches of organizations. In particular, it is thought that female managers possess different leadership qualities than men, thereby constituting a separate group within an organization. It is therefore significant to note that feminist/womanist approaches influence women's leadership styles.

This study adds significantly to the published body of knowledge. Its findings reflect valuable contribution concerning which factors of feminism/womanism attitudes have an effect on leadership styles.

With an aim to investigate the recent state of the feminist clinics and their negotiation of medical authority in a time of increased technoscientific biomedicalization, and capitalistic health-care system, I conducted a study of two feminist health centers in the Northeast of the United States in 2001–2002. In this chapter, I discuss how the two centers (a nonprofit collective and a for-profit center with a more hierarchical structure) negotiated medical authority in organizational terms as impacted by the larger context of medicine and its interaction with the state, capitalist health-care system, and antiabortion forces. The chapter concludes with a discussion of demedicalization as a multilevel process and implications for feminist care (service delivery) and U.S. Women's Health Movement.